Beer and Taxes

[Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo]

I'm just trying to remember if this got as much high brow discussion and attention the first time it was posted a few month's ago.

[Åsgard]

Cut n Paste:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

Premise makes sense...

THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.
(Story continues below)

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.
The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.



Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.


The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.
But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.


"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."
Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.
He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.
"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.
"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."


While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.

The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.

[lemon boy]

No actually the premise doesn't make sense. the WND huh? great journalism there.

Jury Nullification is not the same as Constitutional Law.

[Steven S. Dallas]

Blah, blah, blah. People bring these claims all the time and they always lose. There is loads of case law (not to mention the General Welfare Clause and the 16th Amendment of the Constitution) making federal taxation legal.

[Crass3000]

I think what is being partially missed here is an issue of responsibility. Take the following example:

I give someone from a poor neighborhood and a rich neighborhood the same amount of money and they can do whatever they want with it.

This ends up being somewhat of a generalization like Leroy's but I'm sure you'll see that the person in the rich neighborhood spends it more responsibly. This is really a cultural issue. People raised in poor neighborhoods don't have the morals or ethics as those raised in a rich neighboorhood. Note I am not saying that either set of morals is superior as both sets have been gained through the experiences they have had in life and what people in the same circumstances around them have taught them.

It's true that people from poor neighborhoods REALLY have a harder time climbing the ladder but I don't think it's entirely for economic reasons. People in the poor neighborhood are brought up hearing that they can't succeed in life and that it costs way too much to go to college. Ironically the person in the poor neighborhood can get tons of grants and will make it through school pretty cheap.


Anyway... the main point here is that there are cultural differences between those that live in poor and rich neighborhoods that tend to hold people down and elevate rich people. Poor people are taught to fail and rich are taught to succeed by their parents and their environment. I would argue that the toughest part about succeeding for a poor person is looking through the indictrination they have heard all their life and just getting it done.

[mcsquared]

You are an idiot. The poor person will spend in on food, rent, and or a car so they can go to work so they can buy food and pay rent. The rich person will put the money in a mutual fund or a 529 plan because they already have those basic needs taken care of.

Wait let me guess, you just read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"

[leroy jenkins]

I think what is being partially missed here is an issue of responsibility. Take the following example:

I give someone from a poor neighborhood and a rich neighborhood the same amount of money and they can do whatever they want with it.

This ends up being somewhat of a generalization like Leroy's but I'm sure you'll see that the person in the rich neighborhood spends it more responsibly. This is really a cultural issue. People raised in poor neighborhoods don't have the morals or ethics as those raised in a rich neighboorhood. Note I am not saying that either set of morals is superior as both sets have been gained through the experiences they have had in life and what people in the same circumstances around them have taught them.

Ok, so one buys a rolex to show of to his freinds, and implants for his trophy wife, the other buys some new rims and a subwoofer. Whats your fucking point?


EDIT: mcsquared beat me to it with a much more realistic answer, but I felt like being a smart ass.

[Crass3000]

I guess when I say rich I mean middle class. You have to be a moron when you deny there is no cultural influence on success and failure. You guys pretty much make my arguement for me. You say that the "rich" will succeed and the "poor" will fail. This is exactly what they likely hear at home all through their formative years and thereafter. Not to mention you would probably get your ass handed to you if your the guy walking around in kakis in a poor neighborhood cause your trying to do better for yourself.

Edit: But thanks for ignoring my more important point and only recognizing one small portion.

[schuss]

I guess when I say rich I mean middle class. You have to be a moron when you deny there is no cultural influence on success and failure. You guys pretty much make my arguement for me. You say that the "rich" will succeed and the "poor" will fail. This is exactly what they likely hear at home all through their formative years and thereafter. Not to mention you would probably get your ass handed to you if your the guy walking around in kakis in a poor neighborhood cause your trying to do better for yourself.

Edit: But thanks for ignoring my more important point and only recognizing one small portion.

The other thing you're missing is that rich kids generally have a fallback. They can always go back and live at home if their startup fails, and they generally know plenty of people willing to invest in their stuff. Poor/middle class kids have to work to survive, or their creditors (or parents) will eat them alive. The fact that failing at your current endeavor ends up with wounded pride vs. homelessness makes a huge difference riskwise. There are a lot of other things going on here, but this is definitely a huge driver.

[TNKen]

You are an idiot. The poor person will spend in [sic] on food, rent, and or [sic] a car so they can go to work so they can buy food and pay rent.

You forgot beer and weed, not necessarily in that order. Those "necessities" usually fit into the equation somewhere.

Ken

[Jer]

Nah. The hard part about succeeding, if you're born to the wrong folks in the wrong place, is ... well, let's see.

First you gotta survive being born. That's tough, when your mom is an undernourished manure gatherer living in a tarpaper shack under a bridge next to an industrial sewer that used to be a tributary of the Ganges.

Assuming you survive, you're probably malnourished, vitamin-deficient, and a little stunted already. If you can keep some of the calories you consume inside you - instead of flushing them right through with the diarrhea - you'll be burning most that energy to fight of dozens of diseases that your more fortunate peers will never even hear of.

Your parents and family - if they haven't been dispersed to the winds by labor migration, rural displacements, or genocide - aren't gonna have much time or resources to give you an education, not even an informal one. You'll be helping your mom beg for food before you can walk.

If you live to the age of six, the only air you'll know is the two-stroke exhaust you breathe all day long in the streets of Calcutta, begging for change, handing out fliers, or trying to sell yesterday's stolen newspapers. By night, you'll add to the atmosphere by burning little heaps of trash and manure. If you're lucky, you'll have a few lentils to cook over the trash. Maybe even a few peanuts to roast, but you should probably hold on to those to sell the next day.

Education? Opportunity? Mobility? Not just difficult - nearly inconceivable. Your uncle has it good - he's got a spot on the sidewalk, everybody knows it's his, he doesn't have to fight for it every day - a little bit of shelter from the rain & traffic, high enough to stay relatively dry. He can get a good night's sleep there, curled up in his blanket on the cement.

You can aspire to that much. If you dodge disease and injury that long.

But half way 'round the world, there's someone who thinks he somehow earned and deserves every bit of the free education, healthcare, security, and opportunity he's been handed.

That someone also takes comfort in the flip side of that belief in his deservingness: the belief that your life sucks because you suck. The belief that you deserve it - your laziness, poverty, weakness, foolishness, sickness, lack of discipline, lack of education, inability to plan - all are deserved consequences of your choices.

Or your family's choices. Or your culture's choices. Because they were all choices, carefully considered, unconstrained and unforced ... right? And the sins of the fathers are justly visited on the sons ... right?

Thus Justice is served, order is preserved. The world ticks on in perfect clockwork balance, and you can both drift off to sleep now - one with a satisfied smile in a soft warm bed; the other on cold concrete with a gnawing in his belly.

"There, but for the grace of God ..."
... seems to have fallen out of fashion.